CANON 300 for macro ?

MDB2

MDB2

Suspended / Banned
Messages
116
Name
michael
Edit My Images
Yes
Hi , I have recently been considering the canon 300f/4 is usm for macro work, before purchasing the lens I have a few problems to convince myself I am headed in the right direction, rather than purchasing the sigma 180 f2.8 os. Firstly I realise the 300 isn't macro ie 1.1. But can be put to other uses, although macro is the main theme. The lens specs are that it's nearest min focus distance is 1.5m which is ok although a metre would be better! Also the the magnification is only .24 I would like to get this to the usual 1.1 macro figure. Does anyone know how the two figures could be obtained ie 1.1 and about a metre nearest focus distance.
Also has anyone tried or used this lens for macro
Regards mike
 
Last edited:
Will it take an extension tube,sorry but ime nikon so dont know about canon lenses
 
Just a standard extension tube should work. Either manual (which is a pain) or electronic one so you can change the aperture. I used to use a Canon 75-300 IS for macro with an extension tube. The benefit of the zoom was you had a lot more control over the focal point!
 
MDB2 said:
Hi , I have recently been considering the canon 300f/4 is usm for macro work, before purchasing the lens I have a few problems to convince myself I am headed in the right direction, rather than purchasing the sigma 180 f2.8 os. Firstly I realise the 300 isn't macro ie 1.1. But can be put to other uses, although macro is the main theme. The lens specs are that it's nearest min focus distance is 1.5m which is ok although a metre would be better! Also the the magnification is only .24 I would like to get this to the usual 1.1 macro figure. Does anyone know how the two figures could be obtained ie 1.1 and about a metre nearest focus distance.
Also has anyone tried or used this lens for macro
Regards mike
Click to expand...

Hi Mike

Not used it for Macro work, but the Canon 300mm F4 IS is a belter of a lens and I'd certainly recommend one...
 
Works well with a 1.4 telecon & an extension tube gets you even closer !
 
To get 1:1 with the 300mm you'd need about 300mm of extension tubes which isn't really practical. Using an APS-C camera & 1.4x tc will reduce this but you will end up with a very unwieldy combination that probably won't AF. I use this lens with a 25mm Canon tube and it takes the minimum focus down to about 1.2m, so another should reduce it to about 1m. This is great for dragonflies and butterflies, but is not what you would call macro. Most of my dragonfly shots in my flickr are taken with this combination.

https://www.flickr.com/photos/mark_tyrrell/
 
you might be able to get a acromat that would fit, not sure on that tho
 
Brachytron said:
To get 1:1 with the 300mm you'd need about 300mm of extension tubes which isn't really practical. Using an APS-C camera & 1.4x tc will reduce this but you will end up with a very unwieldy combination that probably won't AF. I use this lens with a 25mm Canon tube and it takes the minimum focus down to about 1.2m, so another should reduce it to about 1m. This is great for dragonflies and butterflies, but is not what you would call macro. Most of my dragonfly shots in my flickr are taken with this combination.

https://www.flickr.com/photos/mark_tyrrell/
Click to expand...
The sensor size has no effect on the reproduction ratio. All that changes is the proportion of the sensor the image fills.
 
mortimerhill said:
The sensor size has no effect on the reproduction ratio. All that changes is the proportion of the sensor the image fills.
Click to expand...

I see where you are coming from, but in practice I disagree. Image magnification refers to the size of the subject in relation to the size of the image on the sensor. Take a picture at 1:1 of a subject 22.3mm wide on a 20MP Canon APS-C and it will fill the width of the sensor. On a 20MP FF sensor, it will fill only about 2/3 of the width of the sensor. Display them both at the same image width and the image from the APS-C will be 1.6x higher magnification than the FF image.
 
Like Brachytron suggests, extension tubes don't make a dramatic difference with long lenses in terms of magnification for macro shots. Helpfully, Canon list the ratios you'll get with their lenses and extension tubes on the specification tabs:
http://www.canon.co.uk/For_Home/Product_Finder/Cameras/EF_Lenses/Telephoto/EF_300mm_f4L_IS_USM/
Compare that with say their nifty fifty:
http://www.canon.co.uk/For_Home/Pro...d_Medium_Telephoto/EF_50mm_f1.8_II/index.aspx

The 300 is a good lens- but there are better and cheaper options for macro work.
 
Last edited:
Brachytron said:
I see where you are coming from, but in practice I disagree. Image magnification refers to the size of the subject in relation to the size of the image on the sensor. Take a picture at 1:1 of a subject 22.3mm wide on a 20MP Canon APS-C and it will fill the width of the sensor. On a 20MP FF sensor, it will fill only about 2/3 of the width of the sensor. Display them both at the same image width and the image from the APS-C will be 1.6x higher magnification than the FF image.
Click to expand...


No, image magnification is the ratio of the image size on the sensor to the actual size of the subject. At 1:1, a 15mm subject is 15mm on the sensor, irrespective of the sensor size. The viewed or printed image size is a red herring.
 
Last edited:
WOW, I did not expect this subject to get this reply. Thankyou all, as 300mm seems to long (am I asking to much?)
Would lowering the length to 200mm give me a better option?
 
MDB2 said:
Hi , I have recently been considering the canon 300f/4 is usm for macro work, before purchasing the lens I have a few problems to convince myself I am headed in the right direction, rather than purchasing the sigma 180 f2.8 os. Firstly I realise the 300 isn't macro ie 1.1. But can be put to other uses, although macro is the main theme. The lens specs are that it's nearest min focus distance is 1.5m which is ok although a metre would be better! Also the the magnification is only .24 I would like to get this to the usual 1.1 macro figure. Does anyone know how the two figures could be obtained ie 1.1 and about a metre nearest focus distance.
Also has anyone tried or used this lens for macro
Regards mike
Click to expand...

Suggest a rethink, a 300mm lens is no way to do 1:1 macro. And while the Sigma 180/2.8 OS Macro is a fantastically sharp lens, it is also very heavy and not everyone's cup of tea. 100mm-ish macro is the way to go, unless you have some particular reason to need longer. Lots of excellent lenses to choose from, Sigma 105 OS and Tamron 90 VC are great value. Both will give you 1:1 at 14cm from the front of the lens. Or Canon 100L IS of course, for more money.
 
I've got the Sigma 105mm macro and am happy with it. There's lots of love for the Sigma 150mm too if you want to give your subject more space.
 
Coyon said:
I've got the Sigma 105mm macro and am happy with it. There's lots of love for the Sigma 150mm too if you want to give your subject more space.
Click to expand...

Yes, Sigma 150 OS is another good lens. At 1:1 minimum working distance is 18cm from the front of the lens. Sigma 180 OS's MWD is 22cm.
 
HI and many apologies for the delay in replying, had a mid week trip to rye harbour NNR well worth the visit!
THANKS to all the replies. I already have the canon 100is macro and it's excellent my Idea is to increase my working distance not so much for butterflies but for dragonflies, It would be nice to be about 1 metre away and still get to about 1.1 magnification. However is this feasible with photography?
Kind regards mike
 
MDB2 said:
HI and many apologies for the delay in replying, had a mid week trip to rye harbour NNR well worth the visit!
THANKS to all the replies. I already have the canon 100is macro and it's excellent my Idea is to increase my working distance not so much for butterflies but for dragonflies, It would be nice to be about 1 metre away and still get to about 1.1 magnification. However is this feasible with photography?
Kind regards mike
Click to expand...
Haven't tried it myself so I stand to be corrected, but my understanding is:
Yes you can a teleconverter- but not the Canon ones (unless you're also using an extension tube in between). The reason being that canon teleconverters have a front element that sticks out and will touch the rear element of some lenses (including this one I believe). Kenko one should be fine.
With a 2x teleconverter you'll get a 1:1 ratio at double the distance -so around 60cm for your lens.

You'll lose 1 or 2 stops of light with a teleconverter (depending on whether it's a 1.4x or 2x).
You'll probably lose AF up close (Sigma basically quote that over the 1:1 ratio their macro lenses won't autofocus)

Incidentally, do you really need a 1:1 ratio for dragonflies- they're not the smallest critters in the world?!
 
Last edited:
Hi Coyon, yes your probably right, maybe a little less will magnification would be ok, also might look at the canon 200 prime?
 
Having spent last summer photographing butterflies with a 70-300 L lens, i have now invested in a Canon 180mm macro lens. It's not image stabilised and I did read some reviews that criticised the speed of focussing, but I am really pleased with it so far. Also, I have teamed it with the 1.4x extender and it works brilliantly. I do usually manually focus it, but I have even used it to photograph the odd perched bird too whilst on my hunt for butterflies and dragonflies. Mostly I've used it on a monopod so far.

Don't you still need to be the minimum focussing distance away to get the 1:1 magnification?

I thought you might be interested to see an image shot with the 180mm + 1.4x from about a metre away. I have tried to show it 'as shot' and then cropped, to attempt to show you the detail. These were taken on a full frame 5DIII. Shot at f/16 1/125s ISO 400 (I consider myself a novice at shooting dragonflies/damselflies by the way!)

View attachment 12905View attachment 12906
 
Bebop said:
Don't you still need to be the minimum focussing distance away to get the 1:1 magnification?
View attachment 12905View attachment 12906
Click to expand...


If you mean with a teleconverter then no- MFD stays the same, but magnification will be 1.4:1 or 2:1 at the MFD. You can of course choose instead to increase your subject distance, and get a 1:1 ratio without crowding your subject.
 
I decided to try a few macro, or should I say "close up" shots with my Nikon 300mm f2.8VR today
On a tripod from some distance away ........ minimum focus distance plus a bit - say 2.5 to 3 metres
It was quite dark around the garden pond, so the images are fighting noise
Here are my first efforts at "macros" ....... and as I said with my "birding" lens - the Nikon 300mm f2.8VR ..... but you would not want to "hand hold" it for more than a minute. I also tried with the Nikon 300mm f4, but the results were not as good
I think that they are at ISO 1200 ish

(planning to get a Nikon 105mm f2.8VR Macro ...... but I may rethink and get a longer one ....... as when I approached the Damselfly within a meter it just flew off)

Not great images, but not a bad start

Blue_1-June_1.jpg


Blue_1-June_2.jpg


Blue_1-June_3.jpg
 
Last edited:
Coyon said:
If you mean with a teleconverter then no- MFD stays the same, but magnification will be 1.4:1 or 2:1 at the MFD. You can of course choose instead to increase your subject distance, and get a 1:1 ratio without crowding your subject.
Click to expand...
:) I'm probably confusing things talking about the converter, but I did mean it's 1:1 at the MFD without the converter!

The difference therefore between the Canon 180mm macro and the 100mm macro is that you can get 1:1 about 15-20cm further away (specs are on the Canon website but I can't remember exactly now). Then having the converter lets you get the 1:1 from a little further away again.

I spent ages trying to decide if those extra few cm were worth it and also considering the lack of IS on the 180 and the weight - but I have been very pleased with it.
 
MWD at 1:1 (Minimum Working Distance - measured from front of lens to focus plane) is 15cm on the Canon 100/2.8, 13cm on Canon 100/2.8 L IS, and 24cm on Canon 180 L.
 
Thanks again, this macro photography or close focusing is quite a subject. Thankyou billN33 for posting your damselfly shots. This has given me an idea on the 300mm and the sort of photo likely. I am thinking the the only way to be certain could to hire a 300 lens?
Kind regards mike
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top